24 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2014Background
- Conant, proceeding pro se, sued Wells Fargo and multiple defendants to challenge a foreclosure and obtain declaratory/injunctive relief.
- Wells Fargo and AFRCT moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; Conant filed multiple motions and a motion to portray the securitization audit.
- The court addressed service issues, noted improper service on some defendants, and dismissed unserved John Does 1–20 and AFRCT for lack of service.
- The court considered whether Wells Fargo owns/conveys the note and mortgage, including a securitization report submitted by Conant, and noted reliability questions but allowed briefing on that document.
- Conant’s claims included consent-judgment enforcement, due process, FDCPA, fraud, and IIED; the court found the Consent Judgment non-enforceable by Conant as a non-party and dismissed due process claims against Wells Fargo, while reserving briefing on remaining claims.
- The court granted LPS Agency Sales and Posting, Inc.’s motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to state a claim and granted NDeX West, LLC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, with other related rulings and forthcoming briefing accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over AFRCT and NDeX West | Conant asserts forum contacts via foreclosure actions. | AFRCT and NDeX West lack contacts with DC; no general or specific jurisdiction. | Lacks personal jurisdiction over both defendants. |
| Proper service on defendants | Service was properly effected. | Service failed to meet Rule 4; improper service on AFRCT. | John Does 1–20 dismissed; AFRCT dismissed for improper service. |
| ASAP’s involvement and pleading adequacy | ASAP participates in the foreclosure process. | ASAP not properly pleaded; no fraud specifics. | ASAP dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
| Enforceability of Consent Judgment and Wells Fargo’s standing | Consent Judgment restricts Wells Fargo’s foreclosure; Wells Fargo lacked standing. | Consent Judgment not enforceable by a non-party; standing issue pending briefing. | Consent Judgment claims against Wells Fargo dismissed; briefing on standing, fraud, FDCPA, and IIED to follow. |
| IIED and FDCPA viability | Foreclosure caused intentional infliction of emotional distress and FDCPA violations. | Wells Fargo not a state actor; FDCPA applicability depends on debt-collection status. | IIED issues noted for briefing; FDCPA claims depend on ownership/collection status; held in abeyance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (minimum contacts and fair play standard for jurisdiction)
- GTE New Media Servs., Inc. v. Bell-South Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (long-arm jurisdiction framework in DC Circuit)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (purposeful availment and foreseeability in jurisdiction analysis)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (foreseeability and relatedness in jurisdictional analysis)
- Hearth Admins., Corp. v. City of New York, 394 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2012) (public policy arguments and preliminary injunction considerations (illustrative))